Boko Haram’s controversial ceasefire/peace offer

Both the federal government and Borno State have reacted with tentative unease to the offer by Boko Haram to declare unilateral ceasefire and engage in dialogue for lasting peace. On the part of Borno State, they are desperate to have any kind of deal as long as it would lead to cessation of hostility, but are not sure whether the sect’s proposal will fly, especially in view of the federal government’s newfound bellicosity. Abuja on the other hand is exasperated by the sect’s obduracy and refusal in the past months to enter into dialogue without preconditions. And in the face of the Mali campaign, which the government says may have disrupted Boko Haram’s command structure and safe haven, Abuja appears to think the sect is cornered and desperate. There is, therefore, brinkmanship on both sides.

There has never been a consensus on dialogue with the Islamist sect. There will never be. But it is also understandable why Borno State, which has borne the brunt of the sect’s activities, is desperate to secure peace in order for economic and social activities to be restored. For both federal and state governments, the issue of setting a sound and principled precedent for leaders to follow in the face of anarchical groups levying war against the state is not urgent at all. This was why they pussyfooted for a long time over whether to dialogue with the sect or not. But just when the vacillating Jonathan government had made up its mind to fight until victory was achieved, the sect threw a hard bone into the mix, which Borno State seems resolved to chew with its milk teeth.

In making up their minds on the sect’s proposal, especially the demand for N26bn compensation, it is important for both Borno and Abuja to know that the innocent dead, especially those whose lives were shattered for no reason other than either their religion or refusal to cooperate with the sect, cannot be part of that negotiation. The federal and state governments must also struggle with the deeply troubling irony of making a deal with the sect to reward its living and dead members for having levied war against the state and destroyed other people’s lives while purportedly fighting either social or economic injustice.

Boko Haram militants, some state governments in the Northeast, and many of the sect’s sympathisers argue that since the federal government could spend hundreds of billions of naira to end Niger Delta militancy, it should be prepared to spend a decent fraction of that to end militancy in the North. Such arguments deliberately fail to take cognisance of the striking dissimilarities between the two types of militancy. While the Niger Delta campaigns were first and foremost directed at economic sabotage for years of indefensible neglect of the region, the Boko Haram campaigns were first and foremost an unconscionable human tragedy enacted wilfully by a misguided group that has now spawned more violently adventurous splinter groups. It is a disservice to intellectualism and to the country to excuse the destructions wreaked by the sect, or to monetise peace.

Boko Haram sympathisers should be advised to limit their campaigns to pleading for amnesty for the sect’s foot soldiers. They should also limit themselves to suing the government for all the documented cases of extra-judicial killings carried out by security agents. Perhaps the courts may even compel the government to pay substantially more than the arbitrary N26bn the sect is asking for. But for the Republic to be saved and the law and constitution preserved, the sect’s leaders must be apprehended, tried and punished according to the laws of the land. In addition, security agents who engaged in extrajudicial killings should be brought to book, and the point made that Nigeria is not a lawless jungle filled with maniacal and uncontrollable killers in uniform. And then finally, the innocent dead and wounded must receive adequate compensation for peace to reign.